Modded Mustang Forums banner

41 - 60 of 62 Posts

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
You even quoted me on this but because I know your reading retention leaves something to be desired I will post it again.

It would seem but then again we don't have to walk in their shoes do we? I will agree with you that after thinking about it it is a bit of a stretch for the article to try and claim this but it's quite a coincidence that the offices that were closed just happened to be in areas where there are a high concentration of democrat voters.

John
Where did I quote you specifically on that? And this is it's double speak.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
Desecrated? Shouldn't legislation affect as many people rather than as many acres are in any one state? Shouldn't legislation be geared towards how it affects the most people rather than how it affects any particular region? John
Oh no you deh-int! Oh NO! You did not just say that. Let me make sure I have this right ... legislation should affect the most people? You can't possibly be serious with that statement. You flop and flail in opposition to any little thing that insults or inconveniences any small slug of people you view as a minority group (say, the dozen gay couples in Rowan Co. Kentucky who might want a marriage license each year) like it's the end of the world. Oh! The oppression! Oh! What about the humanity! ... and then you have the gall to act like you favor legislation to represent the majority. OMG! :headscratcher:

So ... if a state is running low on cash and facing some budget cuts, say Alabama perhaps, and then that state decides to close some of their least-used satellite DMV offices (understanding that may inconvenience 5% of their citizens - forcing them to drive an extra 20 or 30 miles a few times a decade to receive certain services), you are all up in arms. Oh! It must be a conspiracy to oppress someone! Never mind the money saved from those closures might allow the state to continue providing other essential services, say road repairs or law enforcement. I don't see you squawking about the needs of the majority then. If you now think "legislation should be geared towards how it affects the most people," I have a newsflash for you ... you just defeated most of your own arguments (and sullied 90% of your beloved liberal agenda).

Would you care to walk that back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,184 Posts
Can a man get some in person voter ID fraud? I'm waiting. I hear it's an epidemic but I don't see it.
It was laid out in certain media outlets as this major problem. So this all was suppose to be this solution to address this major issues that was somewhat a non issues. Solution looking for a problem that was drummed up or amplified by certain media circles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #45 (Edited)
Oh no you deh-int! Oh NO! You did not just say that. Let me make sure I have this right ... legislation should affect the most people? You can't possibly be serious with that statement. You flop and flail in opposition to any little thing that insults or inconveniences any small slug of people you view as a minority group (say, the dozen gay couples in Rowan Co. Kentucky who might want a marriage license each year) like it's the end of the world. Oh! The oppression! Oh! What about the humanity! ... and then you have the gall to act like you favor legislation to represent the majority. OMG! :headscratcher:

So ... if a state is running low on cash and facing some budget cuts, say Alabama perhaps, and then that state decides to close some of their least-used satellite DMV offices (understanding that may inconvenience 5% of their citizens - forcing them to drive an extra 20 or 30 miles a few times a decade to receive certain services), you are all up in arms. Oh! It must be a conspiracy to oppress someone! Never mind the money saved from those closures might allow the state to continue providing other essential services, say road repairs or law enforcement. I don't see you squawking about the needs of the majority then. If you now think "legislation should be geared towards how it affects the most people," I have a newsflash for you ... you just defeated most of your own arguments (and sullied 90% of your beloved liberal agenda).

Would you care to walk that back?
I already said that the article was far fetched. Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote again.

You said that middle america is much larger and I'm saying that geography shouldn't be what dictates legislation and how if affects "We The People". Conversely, some "religious freedom" issue that affects sparsely populated areas because their culture revolves around their church doesn't mean that they need special dispensation from a law that effects many more in a negative way. As has been said many times to muslims, you don't like the laws of this country? Move to one who's laws you do like. Isn't that the conservative message when it comes to assimilation in this country?

As far as Kim Davis, what conservatives lack is the long view of how this type of discrimination ripple effects the rest of the country. Allowing Kim Davis to not honor same sex couples with the same rights that opposite sex couples are afforded will spark all kinds of similar acts of defiance to a ruling that the SCOTUS has deemed lawful that people don't want to follow. This proclamation that religious freedoms are being trampled on is a bunch of hooey. You don't like that the government is secular in nature then go find a job that aligns with your beliefs. You don't want to give up that high paying government job? Then you've chosen money over your beliefs.

Where did I quote you specifically on that? And this is it's double speak.
You quoted the entire post with that part in it so by quoting me I assumed you actually read what I wrote but I should know better by now. As far as double speak, your paranoia is showing. I already said that the article is reaching but I also commented on the coincidence that it points out yet because your aim is not the truth so much as "winning" you go into attack mode. Continue with your babble.

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
I already said that the article was far fetched. Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote again.

You said that middle america is much larger and I'm saying that geography shouldn't be what dictates legislation and how if affects "We The People". Conversely, some "religious freedom" issue that affects sparsely populated areas because their culture revolves around their church doesn't mean that they need special dispensation from a law that effects many more in a negative way. As has been said many times to muslims, you don't like the laws of this country? Move to one that does. Isn't that the conservative message when it comes to assimilation in this country?

As far as Kim Davis, what conservatives lack is the long view of how this type of discrimination ripple effects the rest of the country. Allowing Kim Davis to not honor same sex couples with the same rights that opposite sex couples are afforded will spark all kinds of similar acts of defiance to a ruling that the SCOTUS has deemed lawful that people don't want to follow. This proclamation that religious freedoms are being trampled on is a bunch of hooey. You don't like that the government is secular in nature then go find a job that aligns with your beliefs. You don't want to give up that high paying government job? Then you've chosen money over your beliefs.



You quoted the entire post with that part in it so by quoting me I assumed you actually read what I wrote but I should know better by now. As far as double speak, your paranoia is showing. I already said that the article is reaching but I also commented on the coincidence that it points out yet because your aim is not the truth so much as "winning" you go into attack mode. Continue with your babble.

John
Actually, I do read your entire posts. I only truncate the quote for neatness on the thread. Many of your posts are double-spaced and/or multi-part, so I'm just doing some subconscious OCD housekeeping. If that offends you, I'll be happy to include your quotes in their entirety from now on. To be honest, I like your posts. When most liberals speak, all I can hear are donkey brays and monkey screeches. But some of what you say actually merits rebuttal. If you didn't base so many of your arguments on false premises and allusion, you might win a couple arguments.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
… and with regards to the Kim Davis situation, maybe you misunderstand me to be a supporter. That actually isn't the case. I couldn't care less about Kim Davis or her religious convictions. If she issued a marriage license to a man and his horse, it wouldn't mean **** to me. I have absolutely no hang-ups about the “sanctity of marriage” or whether or not marriage has anything to do with God. Personally, I don't care if ten guys all marry one-another and tie themselves into a 2,000 lb ****ball.

What pisses me off is the unnecessary grandstanding and hyperbole. There are 3,143 individual counties in the United States – many of which are charged with the duty of issuing marriage licenses. We're not talking about hundreds or thousands of state offices defying the Supreme Court. There's no systemic problem here. We're talking about one dingbat Kentucky clerk with a screw loose – a situation that shouldn't have made news much beyond the county lines (and the matter should have been handled swiftly by the KY legislature). But that's not what happened. The incident became the epicenter for (more) political grandstanding about gay rights.

For the left, this wasn't about issuing licenses. No gay couples had their wedding plans ruined because of Kim Davis (unless they too were just trying to make news). This was about making an example out of someone. This was the first test of the law – the first notable act of defiance. So, this was entirely about forcing her compliance – forcing her to submit – so that other opponents of gay marriage don't try the same thing. By demonizing Kim Davis into some kind of bigoted one-eyed monster, the left wants to send a message to the rest of the country: don't even think about it, you Jesus freaks. Now we got our rights and there's nothing you can do about it, bitches!. Basically, it's the double middle-finger “**** you” to the conservative point of view – and the left wanted to make sure everyone got a good look at their victory. Fine.

Sadly, the right naturally countered with a similarly ridiculous freedom of religion argument, and the next thing we know Mike Huckabee is standing there raising her hand in the air. The whole thing was a national embarrassment – for both sides. The grandstanding caused the matter to become completely overblown and politicized to absurdity. And in my view, anyone who participated in that was just putting on a show, so they too could act wounded and victimized … it's called Performance Arts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #48 (Edited)
Actually, I do read your entire posts. I only truncate the quote for neatness on the thread. Many of your posts are double-spaced and/or multi-part, so I'm just doing some subconscious OCD housekeeping. If that offends you, I'll be happy to include your quotes in their entirety from now on. To be honest, I like your posts. When most liberals speak, all I can hear are donkey brays and monkey screeches. But some of what you say actually merits rebuttal. If you didn't base so many of your arguments on false premises and allusion, you might win a couple arguments.
That's what I like about you Mike. While you're misguided indoctrination is apparent, the critical thinking part of your brain triumphs every once in a while! LOL! Kidding!

The last part of my quote was directed at JohnC if that was what you were referring to. As far as arguments based on false premises and illusion I fail to see how fact can be considered a false premise or an illusion but continue with your world view. At least, much like you've endowed me with the crown of "every once in a while he has an intelligent rebuttal", you respond with thought out answers which is more than I can say for some other members.

… and with regards to the Kim Davis situation, maybe you misunderstand me to be a supporter. That actually isn't the case. I couldn't care less about Kim Davis or her religious convictions. If she issued a marriage license to a man and his horse, it wouldn't mean **** to me. I have absolutely no hang-ups about the “sanctity of marriage” or whether or not marriage has anything to do with God. Personally, I don't care if ten guys all marry one-another and tie themselves into a 2,000 lb ****ball.

What pisses me off is the unnecessary grandstanding and hyperbole. There are 3,143 individual counties in the United States – many of which are charged with the duty of issuing marriage licenses. We're not talking about hundreds or thousands of state offices defying the Supreme Court. There's no systemic problem here. We're talking about one dingbat Kentucky clerk with a screw loose – a situation that shouldn't have made news much beyond the county lines (and the matter should have been handled swiftly by the KY legislature). But that's not what happened. The incident became the epicenter for (more) political grandstanding about gay rights.

For the left, this wasn't about issuing licenses. No gay couples had their wedding plans ruined because of Kim Davis (unless they too were just trying to make news). This was about making an example out of someone. This was the first test of the law – the first notable act of defiance. So, this was entirely about forcing her compliance – forcing her to submit – so that other opponents of gay marriage don't try the same thing. By demonizing Kim Davis into some kind of bigoted one-eyed monster, the left wants to send a message to the rest of the country: don't even think about it, you Jesus freaks. Now we got our rights and there's nothing you can do about it, bitches!. Basically, it's the double middle-finger “**** you” to the conservative point of view – and the left wanted to make sure everyone got a good look at their victory. Fine.

Sadly, the right naturally countered with a similarly ridiculous freedom of religion argument, and the next thing we know Mike Huckabee is standing there raising her hand in the air. The whole thing was a national embarrassment – for both sides. The grandstanding caused the matter to become completely overblown and politicized to absurdity. And in my view, anyone who participated in that was just putting on a show, so they too could act wounded and victimized … it's called Performance Arts.
I agree wholeheartedly that there was a lot of grandstanding and hyperbole going on but I would offer that most of that shoveful of crap went to the right. When you have morons like Huckabee and Cruz grandstanding for what was obviously a chance at grabbing some airtime since "The Donald", at that point, had been sucking up all the oxygen in the room, their reasoning for championing this women for defying a SCOTUS ruling becomes all the more ludicrous and hypocritical. Huckabee, at the very least, had a thin veil of cover to his visit. He's always had this "war on christianity" complex going but Cruz? I actually like Mike Huckabee. Crazy and misguided as he may be I think at his core he is a good, decent man but being a good, decent man is not enough to run the US.

As far as Kim Davis, to use the argument that "only a few were affected" is disengenious. You and I both know that this was only a precursor to the ripple effect that I mentioned earlier. Had an official in the same position as Kim Davis done the opposite and defied the law of a state that had enacted a religious freedom statute proclaiming that same sex marriage licenses were not allowed to be issued the right would be all up in arms and the clerk would have been arrested so to say that liberals are reacting simply out of spite is not accurate. We can't allow people to break the law simply because they don't agree with it unless it is discriminatory in nature. Of course the religious right will counter that they are being discriminated against but the false premise of their argument involves religion which should never be injected into legislation in the first place so their argument is null. Kim Davis had made her beliefs known and she was accommodated for it, which that in itself was wrong, yet she decided that that wasn't enough for her. She had a choice in regards to following her religious convictions and she chose money over her beliefs.

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
I agree wholeheartedly that there was a lot of grandstanding and hyperbole going on but I would offer that most of that shoveful of crap went to the right. When you have morons like Huckabee and Cruz grandstanding for what was obviously a chance at grabbing some airtime since "The Donald", at that point, had been sucking up all the oxygen in the room their reasoning for championing this women for defying a SCOTUS ruling becomes all the more ludicrous and hypocritical. Huckabee, at the very least, had a thin veil of cover to his visit. He's always had this "war on christianity" complex going but Cruz? I actually like Mike Huckabee. Crazy and misguided as he may be I think at his core he is a good, decent man but being a good, decent man is not enough to run the US.

As far as Kim Davis, to use the argument that "only a few were affected" is disengenious. You and I both know that this was only a precursor to the ripple effect that I mentioned earlier. Had an official in the same position as Kim Davis done the opposite and defied the law of a state that had enacted a religious freedom statute proclaiming that same sex marriage licenses were not allowed to be issued the right would be all up in arms and the clerk would have been arrested so to say that liberals are reacting simply out of spite is not accurate. We can't allow people to break the law simply because they don't agree with it unless it is discriminatory in nature. Of course the religious right will counter that they are being discriminated against but the false premise of their argument involves religion which should never be injected into legislation in the first place so their argument is null. Kim Davis had made her beliefs known and she was accommodated for it, which that in itself was wrong, yet she decided that that wasn't enough for her. She had a choice in regards to following her religious convictions and she chose money over her beliefs.

John
Meh! I'll go along with most of that - less the part about being disingenuous. The idea that Kim Davis was some sort of anti-gay social policy mastermind is laughable. Have you actually heard her speak? I don't want to seem impolite, but she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. She did something stupid - for reasons she thought were noble - and in fact, very little harm was done. As I said, there is no systemic problem or widespread defiance of the Supreme Court decision. There is no cause for alarm. This was not some mysterious "precursor to the ripple effect" or anything quite that grandiose. It was just a ding-dong religious zealot who overstepped her authority - having little or no idea how much national fuss she might cause. And again, those who try to amplify the significance of Kim Davis are just being obtuse (or putting on a show).
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
… and with regards to the Kim Davis situation, maybe you misunderstand me to be a supporter. That actually isn't the case. I couldn't care less about Kim Davis or her religious convictions. If she issued a marriage license to a man and his horse, it wouldn't mean **** to me. I have absolutely no hang-ups about the “sanctity of marriage” or whether or not marriage has anything to do with God. Personally, I don't care if ten guys all marry one-another and tie themselves into a 2,000 lb ****ball.

What pisses me off is the unnecessary grandstanding and hyperbole. There are 3,143 individual counties in the United States – many of which are charged with the duty of issuing marriage licenses. We're not talking about hundreds or thousands of state offices defying the Supreme Court. There's no systemic problem here. We're talking about one dingbat Kentucky clerk with a screw loose – a situation that shouldn't have made news much beyond the county lines (and the matter should have been handled swiftly by the KY legislature). But that's not what happened. The incident became the epicenter for (more) political grandstanding about gay rights.

For the left, this wasn't about issuing licenses. No gay couples had their wedding plans ruined because of Kim Davis (unless they too were just trying to make news). This was about making an example out of someone. This was the first test of the law – the first notable act of defiance. So, this was entirely about forcing her compliance – forcing her to submit – so that other opponents of gay marriage don't try the same thing. By demonizing Kim Davis into some kind of bigoted one-eyed monster, the left wants to send a message to the rest of the country: don't even think about it, you Jesus freaks. Now we got our rights and there's nothing you can do about it, bitches!. Basically, it's the double middle-finger “**** you” to the conservative point of view – and the left wanted to make sure everyone got a good look at their victory. Fine.

Sadly, the right naturally countered with a similarly ridiculous freedom of religion argument, and the next thing we know Mike Huckabee is standing there raising her hand in the air. The whole thing was a national embarrassment – for both sides. The grandstanding caused the matter to become completely overblown and politicized to absurdity. And in my view, anyone who participated in that was just putting on a show, so they too could act wounded and victimized … it's called Performance Arts.
Reps! :yes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
Meh! I'll go along with most of that - less the part about being disingenuous. The idea that Kim Davis was some sort of anti-gay social policy mastermind is laughable. Have you actually heard her speak? I don't want to seem impolite, but she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. She did something stupid - for reasons she thought were noble - and in fact, very little harm was done. As I said, there is no systemic problem or widespread defiance of the Supreme Court decision. There is no cause for alarm. This was not some mysterious "precursor to the ripple effect" or anything quite that grandiose. It was just a ding-dong religious zealot who overstepped her authority - having little or no idea how much national fuss she might cause. And again, those who try to amplify the significance of Kim Davis are just being obtuse (or putting on a show).
I put no guilt on Ms. Davis in regards to the overall issue and agree with you. She was just the progenitor to the larger argument and I will also agree that the issue in and of itself was not as big as what was portrayed in the media. What I do hold her to was her choosing her job over her faith. That is a decision that only she could make and made it so when people say that her religious freedoms were violated I would offer that she chose money over her beliefs.

I think the thing that many don't understand is the sensitivity of the general issue that being the SCOTUS ruling on a national issue that has been hotly contested for years and the timing of Ms. Davis's defiance. To have insurgent defiers this early in it's adoption would only diminish what so many gay couples have fought for so many years to have.

OK...regardless of your opinion or misguided views you get a thumbs up from me! LOL!

John
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
:facepalm:

That said...

Personally, I do not like Glenn. But someone pointed it out to me on FB and I thought it would be a good addition to this racist voter suppression conspiracy thread. :yes
This one's already in the win column. And thanks to your super-post on "global cooling" and the NASA Study, their legs are looking pretty wobbly on the climate change thread too.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
This one's already in the win column. And thanks to your super-post on "global cooling" and the NASA Study, their legs are looking pretty wobbly on the climate change thread too.
Alright Nova, SixPoint: these boys won. I guess its time for us to go home. I'll pack up the Bernie Sanders hammer and sickle flags if you guys can grab the cardboard cutouts we made of the "climate science experts" to make us look right. Maybe someone can setup the aborted-fetus-queso in the crockpot to be ready when we get there? (that was probably going too far...ah well)
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
... Maybe someone can setup the aborted-fetus-queso in the crockpot to be ready when we get there? (that was probably going too far...ah well)
Just imagine how many hungry illegal immigrants you could feed.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

Alright Nova, SixPoint: these boys won. I guess its time for us to go home. I'll pack up the Bernie Sanders hammer and sickle flags if you guys can grab the cardboard cutouts we made of the "climate science experts" to make us look right.
Hey! Don't forget T. Some ppl could feel ignored and ppl could say something but that lets you know how some ppl really believe and show the true intentions of the ppl who say that.
 
41 - 60 of 62 Posts
Top